He will return with his immense heart, with his heart of fire, his poor man's soul
and his smile. He will return! And the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph!

DISCOURSE OF BENEDICT XVI
BEFORE THE AREOPAGUS AT REGENSBURG

On Thursday, 28 September, Nicolas Sarkozy went to the Paris mosque to participate in the breaking of the fast, in the evening at nightfall. After he was welcomed at the grand door of the mosque by the director Dalil Boubakeur, the minister removed his shoes before entering into the sanctuary, as Moses did before the Burning Bush. He expressed his « pride at sharing this privileged moment », adding that this act is « the symbol of the peaceful relations that exist between the Republic and the Muslims of France ».

That’s a first!

And this is the culmination of « the secularism, the monstrous godlessness », about which our Father has been warning since 1994, which « is sweeping France and the Church towards the opposite pole of our salvation; and the tide is tolerance and interfaith dialogue » (Letter to the Phalange n° 47, May 1994), which leads to apostasy.

« O SENSELESS GALATIANS! »

Does Nicolas Sarkozy think that he is going to disarm in this manner the Groupe Salafiste pour la Predication et le Combat (gspc), an Algerian terrorist movement, which a note from the Anti-terrorist Fight Unit last 1 September considered represented « one of the more serious threats that presently weighs heavy on France, which is historically the privileged target of Algerian terrorists. »? This targeting is, as it were, by vocation, i.e., since the martyrdom of Father de Foucauld on 1 December 1916 and that of the Harkis on 1 July 1962… This “Groupe Salafiste” amounts to a few hundred individuals, but not so many are required to go into action. This was demonstrated by the attacks in Madrid and London: a few dozen determined persons suffice to plunge a country into terror.

This is even more valid now because, as in the time of the Algerian war, the movement knows that it can count on support in metropolitan France. And by no means is such help inconsiderable! Under the subtle title “From one Faith to the Other”, Michel Kubler observes, not without satisfaction: « At this, the beginning of the millennium, more and more people of French extraction are choosing to become Muslims. » (La Croix, 25 August) The editorialist is not alarmed, on the contrary! « And if these conversions were an indication of the fact that Islam is finally becoming French? The adoption of this religion by a growing number of those who are now called “Gauls” can be understood as an inevitable statistical consequence of the presence of a significant number of Muslims within the national territory. » Thus, St. Paul’s exclamation regains its full pertinence: « O senseless Galatians, who has bewitched you? » Who? Strange preachers who are dedicated to explaining to us that France has a vocation to become a land of Islam, such as tell us the sixty historians who worked under the direction of Mohammed Arkoun on a monumental “History of Islam and Muslims in France from the Middle Ages to Modern times” (Albin Michel).

Already, « Islam is blending in little by little with the Provencal landscape », with a great mosque in Marseille, and ground-breaking on six projects in La Seyne-sur-Mer (Var), Toulon, La Ciotat. « How can such a profusion be explained? » Answer: « Elected officials are realists: Muslims represent between 8 % and 12 % of the population. » (La Croix, 18 July) Democracy compels… and interfaith “dialogue” as well: « In the Var, the Diocese of Toulon’s Department for Relations with Islam even acted as mediators with public powers. »

DEMOCRACY IS A WORSE EVIL THAN ISLAM.

Presently, they are said to be about ten per day who convert to Islam in France, according to Didier Leschi, head of the office of religions at the Ministry of the Interior. That is to say 3600 per year. Since when? No need to search: since the proclamation of “religious freedom” by the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and the disappearance of the visible Church from our social space that resulted from it. La Croix’s investigation proves it: « A growing number opt for radical Islam, particularly via Salafism », as Didier Leschi sums up. They « remain free of the mosques and the big French Islamic organisations » by which Sarkozy thinks he will control them.

« The young people from the neighbourhoods who convert are in search of points of reference, Kamel Kabtane observes. They encounter Islam around them, and it is Islam that comes to answer their questions on the family, authority, etc. By coming to the mosque, the young converts rediscover an environment, a communitarian approach, and they feel supported. » (La Croix, 25 August 2006, 3-4)

Such is the outcome of the « pacified secularism » dear to our bishops! Christians are thus caught in the democratic trap headed by the Minister of the Interior.

And not only in France.

In Iraq, the main “ministry” of the Latin archbishop of Baghdad and of the services that he directs consists in « giving baptism certificates to Christians who want to flee from » the Islamic Republic that is taking shape thanks to democracy being imposed by fire and sword of the us Army.

In Egypt, the “Muslim Brethren” achieved a breakthrough in the legislative elections thanks to democracy being imposed on President Mubarak by the Americans.

In Palestine, Hamas won the legislative elections. Once again, democracy…

In Lebanon, above all, Christians are stuck in the middle between Hezbollah and Israel. In an interview granted to the Religious Week of Aix-la-Chapelle, Cardinal Nasrallah Sfeir, Patriarch of the Maronites, declared: « Two thousand years have not succeeded in making us leave the Arab world; today, we are fleeing from it at top speed. »

In brief, the fire set by the usa has for five years provoked a massive exodus of Christians from the Near East. It is quite legitimately a source of concern for the Pope.

THE POPE’S DISCOURSE

Le Monde ran as its headline on 13 September 2006 The Pope condemns Islamic “Holy War”: « Never before has a Pope of the modern era quoted so many suras from the Koran and spoken of “jihad”. »

In fact, St. Pius V did not quote the Koran, nor did he merely content himself with “speaking” of “jihad”: he replied to it by organising the victory of Lepanto in 1571.

At the University of Regensburg in eastern Bavaria, where he taught from 1969 to 1977, before a packed amphitheatre of professors and scholars, on Tuesday, 12 September 2006, feast of the Holy Name of Mary that was established by Pope Innocent XI in thanksgiving for the victory won by the assistance of Mary over the Turks at Vienna, Austria in 1683, Benedict XVI denounced “holy war” as contrary to the letter of the Koran and to the “very nature of God”.

« John Paul II sought “dialogue” with Islam. As for Benedict XVI, he prefers intellectual confrontation. With a touch of provocation, he recalled an episode from the fourteenth century that opposed the Christian emperors of Constantinople to Muslim jurists. »

« “Show me what novelty Mohammed introduced. You will only find bad and inhumaine things, like the right to defend with the sword the faith that he preached”: this is a quotation of Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos, in 1391; but, when repeated by the Pope, it caused a shock. »

Immediately, Hell flew into a rage!

Algeria demanded that the Pope apologise; Algeria, for forty years now that means, the fln, let us not forget. The dismayed Archbishop of Algiers, a real “renegade” and worthy successor of Cardinal Duval, « regretted for his part that “the highest representative of the Catholic community (sic!) quoted remarks made in the fourteenth century by the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos”. “We are dismayed by the use of this quotation from another time”, Mgr Teissier said to the francophone daily newspaper El Watan. »

Even in France, Dalil Boubakeur, the President of the French Council of Muslim Worship (cfcm), said without joking: « The first thing Islam is, is tolerance and fraternity. »

Now, what did the Pope say?

ISLAM UNDER THE SCRUTINY OF REASON

Unlike his predecessor, he began by placing himself « in the context of the tradition of the Christian Faith » in order « to raise the question of God through the use of reason ».

Thus established in a strong position, that of « reason enlightened by the Faith », as Saint Pius X used to say, Benedict XVI courageously broaches the subject that distresses people by quoting « the edition published by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. »

If we refer to the text ¹, we remark the perfectly courteous nature of this encounter. The discussion was public: the inhabitants of Ankara participated in it… and frequently went to sleep when the theological discussion became too difficult to follow! The emperor’s Muslim interlocutor showed that he very much wanted to get some explanations of Christian doctrine. He and his two sons, who took part in the controversy, are « people endowed with good sense and wisdom », according to the emperor.

Benedict XVI, however, declared that he did not want to consider the entire scope of this controversy but only one particular point, jihad, holy war. Ouch!

« The emperor must certainly have known that Sura 2, verse 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion!" This is one of the suras of the early period, the experts say. » Surprise! I believe that I am the only “expert” who dares to dismiss a chronological classification of the suras different from the order in which the Koran presents them and who dates Sura 2 to « the early period »². Perhaps Cardinal Ratzinger had gotten wind of our works, because the Pontifical institute of islamology acknowledged receipt of them at the time, and even devoted a review to them in the journal Islamocristiana.

My translation held no one’s attention, and it is a great pity; by following the Hebraic etymology of the words, I translate lâ ’ikrâha fî d-dîni, not as « no compulsion in religion » but « no confusion in justice », a thought already expressed above (verse 216) to encourage the “faithful”… in combat! « Combat is commanded to you and it is a source of confusion for you », the author of the Koran says. Well! « you may be distressed about something that may be a deliverance for you. On the other hand, you may like something that is a chain for you. The God ( ’allah) knows [what is good for you] and you do not know. » Conclusion: the righteous live in peace, even in the midst of combats!

By quoting this passage in the sense that it affirms “religious freedom” – « no compulsion in religion » – the Pope commits an enormous anachronism, but he proves that his intention was not to make the discussion embittered. No, to the contrary, he wanted to tone it down! and not adopt the « startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable », he said, with which the emperor « explains in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God, he said, is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not of the body. Consequently, whoever would lead someone to the faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death... »

Without explicitly saying so, this is a severe censure of terrorism, but based on reason alone, and Greek reason, as the Pope then explains:

« The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The philologist, Theodore Khoury, comments: for the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. For Muslim doctrine, on the other hand, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. In this context, Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by His own word, and that nothing would oblige Him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry. »

This is an extreme “violence” done to simple good sense. The Pope is going to explain it with the greatest caution, with a consummate sense of “dialogue” that is as far removed as possible from any polemical disposition:

« At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, a dilemma arises, which directly challenges us today. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God’s nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: “In the beginning was the Logos”. This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts with logos. »

« Logos means both reason and word – a reason that is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus offered us the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos is God, says the Evangelist.

« The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of St. Paul, before whom the roads to Asia were barred and who in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: “Come over to Macedonia and help us!” (cf. Ac 16.6-10) – this vision can be interpreted as a “distillation” of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry. »

One could not better cast light on the philosophical and historical convergence of the Greek heritage and Biblical revelation, the fruit of which is our civilisation. The Pope continues:

« In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the Burning Bush, a name that separates man from all other divinities with their many names by simply asserting His being, “I am”, already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates’ attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy. »

After having made a rapprochement between Socratic realism and Mosaic revelation, the Pope ends up showing that this conjunction of Biblical revelation with Greek wisdom experienced a sort of crowning achievement at the end of the Old Testament in the Greek translation of the Bible that was made at Alexandria and is known under the name of “Septuagint”:

« Fundamentally, an encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between the genuine philosophy of enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act “with logos” is contrary to God’s nature. »

Is it really so simple? No.

REASON UNDER SCRUTINY.

« In all honesty, Benedict XVI continues, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology that would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. »

Indeed, in his conferences at the St. Francis of Assisi Camp (1995), the Abbé de Nantes showed us at that time how the thirteenth century, far from having consecrated the tranquil triumph of a sovereign Faith that submits all the disciplines of knowledge to itself, was the scene of a veritable battle of ideas. This battle was triggered by the introduction of the Aristotelian system into the midst of Christendom, which had been governed for almost a thousand years by a wise, mystical and political Augustinianism with countless fruits of grace and virtue. It is regrettable that the Pope does not distinguish the Augustinian current that was experiencing a renaissance with the Franciscans from the Thomist current to which it is opposed. Benedict XVI continues:

« In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntaristic situation which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can only know God’s voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God’s freedom, in virtue of which He could have done the opposite of everything He has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazm and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. »

May we be allowed to challenge respectfully this “distillation” as too reductive. The Abbé de Nantes discovered Duns Scotus quite late; he is little known and much maligned, although he was beatified by John Paul II on 20 March 1993:

« «What enlightenment and what benefit! »

Duns Scotus merited « the title of “Marian doctor” for his signal and solitary service to the whole Church, justified for having always celebrated the “Conception”, nay even the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, and called upon to condemn those who would speak against it. But his work as a whole also earns him this other title of “Catholic doctor”, which I choose to highlight the perfection of his judgement on the metaphysics of his time, the thirteenth century, when the universities passed, not without tumultuous protest, from the supremacy of the age old and mystical vision of faith, to the dominance of rational philosophy, Aristotelian and… Thomist. Our saint resolved this conflict serenely, boldly and… truthfully. Thus, he seems to me to have deserved the title of “Catholic doctor”. » (G. de Nantes, Theology and Metaphysics, 1. Brother John, surnamed Scotus, the Catholic Doctor, CCR n° 280, November 1995 p. 23)

What the Pope calls the « voluntaristic situation » that was initiated by Duns Scotus consists in stressing the supremely living and free character of the Will in God. It is not that he intends to withdraw it from the sway of reason; what he states is that the Will in God cannot be determined by anything anterior to it – nothing and no one other than God, but nothing and no other faculty or potency in God Himself! – There is no reason for His Will having willed a thing as such, other than that the will is the will – quia voluntas est voluntas.

In other words: if divine Will exceeds our reason, it is because the Heart of God has Its reasons of which our reason is unaware. Did not Benedict XVI himself enter into this Scotistic « voluntarism » by entitling his first encyclical Deus caritas est, « God is love »? It is precisely what the Abbé de Nantes calls « the infinite freedom of love », the ultimate perfection of God thrice Holy.

But let us recognise the fact, in order to deplore it, that the initial impulse of this Scotist metaphysics was impeded even before progressing, and its heritage deteriorated into nominalism and its absurd theory of God's “potentia absoluta”, « absolute power » opening onto all the inconsistencies, contradictions, retractions and revocations of His successive wills… « It makes one blush to reread the wild suppositions among the alleged disciples of our Blessed Duns, William of Occam, Gabriel Biel and Martin Luther! » (Georges de Nantes, Theology and Metaphysics, 3. God, the infinite freedom of love, CCR n° 283, February - March, p. 20)

Such suppositions are… Muslim! They lead to the image of a « capricious God », who is very far removed from the thought of the Blessed and brilliant Franciscan.

ISLAM UNDER THE SCRUTINY OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM.

On the other hand, St. John of Damascus in the eighth century already denounced in his Book of Heresies this conception of God that is found in « the religion of the Ishmaelites that still holds sway in our days, misleads peoples, and is a harbinger of the coming of the Antichrist » ³. The Pope could have quoted him rather than the Byzantine emperor, because this Father of the Church poses the true question, the only one, one that no one would have blamed the Pope for raising in an academic discourse: the question of the origin of Islam. It must be noted, in fact, that St. John of Damascus only speaks of the “Saracens”, since the two terms “Islam” and “Muslim” only appear later on in the writings of the Byzantines.

In the eyes of St. John of Damascus, who was a contemporary of the origins of Islam, « the religion of the Ishmaelites » is a “Heresy”, and not a “revelation”, with all due respect to Dalil Boubakeur. This is, in fact, what an attentive study and critique of the very text of the Koran brings to light: rather than being “another allegedly revealed religion”, it is a “heresy”, the hundredth one!

St. John of Damascus poses the question in its entire scope, quoting a passage of the Koran to prove it. After having related how « the religion of the Ishmaelites » make Jesus say that He never claimed to be the Son of God (Sura 5, verse 116), the holy Doctor adds:

« Many other absurdities worthy of laughter are mentioned in this Writing, and he [the author “Mamed”] boasts that it descended to him from God. But we say: Who attests that God gave him a scripture, or who among the Prophets announced that such a prophet was to come? We put them in an awkward position when we say to them: Moses received the Law on Sinai in the sight of the entire people, when God appeared in the cloud, the fire, the darkness and the storm; and all the prophets since Moses announced one after the other that Christ would come, that Christ is God and that the Son of God would arrive by taking on flesh, would be crucified and that it is He who will judge the living and the dead. And when we say: Why did your prophet not come in the same fashion, with others to bear witness to him, and why did God, who gave the Law to Moses in the sight of the entire people, on the smoking mountain, not hand down to him in the same manner the scripture of which you speak, in your presence, in order to give your certitude a basis? They reply that God does what He wills. » (op. cit., no 3)

The holy Doctor adds: « This we know well also, but we ask how scripture was revealed to your prophet. » This is the entire question. It comes under a scientific method in use from time immemorial in the study of the Bible: the critical examination of witnesses to it. The Fathers of the Church did not await our so-called modern, modernist “hermeneutic”; this text is proof of it:

« We ask them anew: Since he himself ordered you in your scripture not to do or receive anything without witnesses, why did you not ask him: you first, prove with the help of witnesses that you are a prophet and that you have been sent by God; and what scripture testifies on your behalf? Ashamed, they remain silent. Rightly we say to them: since you are not permitted to marry a woman, nor buy or purchase without witnesses, and since you do not allow one to take possession of even asses or cattle without a witness, you only take wives, goods, asses and the rest before witnesses, faith and scripture alone you accept without witnesses! For he who handed this scripture down to you does not have a guarantee from any quarter, and we know no one who has testified on his behalf in advance. Moreover, he received it when he was asleep! » (ibid.)

« Believe a sleeping witness », St. Augustine would say…

What a good debate! Yet the Pope could not quote this Father of the Church because of the conciliar pact to which he has agreed to be prisoner, as his speech on 25 September to the Muslim ambassadors accredited to the Holy See demonstrated. Quoting Nostra ætate, Benedict XVI declared:

« I would like to express again all the esteem and profound respect that I feel towards Muslim believers, recalling the remarks of the Second Vatican Council that are for the Catholic Church the Magna Charta of the Islamo-Christian dialogue: “The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims, who adore the one God [who has no Son], living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men [yes, yes, Dalil Boubakeur, the director of the mosque of Paris said the other day, God speaks to us; our religion is a revealed religion, but he said it against Pope Benedict XVI!]; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees”[for example, when the voice of the Father made itself heard and said about Christ: “This is My Son, the Beloved. Listen to Him!”?]… »

THE REVELATION OF THE WORD.

Another major argument in the discourse to the aeropagus at Regensburg calls for constructive criticism. In fact, Benedict XVI stated:

« The truly divine God is this God who showed Himself as Logos and who, as Logos, acted and continues to act full of love in our favour. »

In other words, the action where the infinite freedom of divine love is exercised and made manifest would be the work of our creation, comprising in this immense design and decree of God’s, Heaven and earth, men and all things, down to the abyss of hell with its demons and its damned. It is generally this Freedom and also this divine Wisdom that is in question. « And it is thought that God already has enough to busy Himself in with all this. But that is to know Him badly! » the Abbé de Nantes wrote.

In reality, « it is evident that this object of the creative Omnipotence and infinite Will, is only its secondary good, a happiness and a glory incommensurate with its essential Object and its primary and plenary beatitude, its eternal glory. All that, therefore, is nothing, in the Infinite Love of “I am”, but an object of mercy. Our question remains: This infinite Freedom, this Love and this Glory in God are of whom, for whom and for what? » (CCR n° 283, p. 21)

It is enough to open the Gospel in order to find the answer, to gain access to this secret of God’s heart among the throng of the small and humble: « In principio erat Verbum. » Before any creature was ever father or mother, God thus engendered from His bosom, from His Heart, the fruit of His love, the object of His desire, a « God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God », image of His Substance and reflection of His Face, His Only and Beloved Son. This is what Benedict XVI refrained from saying to the philosophers and scholars, as well as to the Muslims…

For want of such a profession of faith, the rest of the Pope’s discourse is a simple recognition of the consequences of what he calls the « dehellenisation of Christianity »:

« The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a dehellenisation of Christianity – a call which has more and more dominated theological discussions since the beginning of the modern age. Viewed more closely, three stages can be observed in the programme of dehellenisation: although interconnected, they are clearly distinct from one another in their motivations and objectives. »

In the encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis, of 8 September 1907, Pope St. Pius X did not speak of “dehellenisation”, but of dechristianisation, and he condemned Modernism as the second step of three closely interconnected stages that was leading to the great modern apostasy: « The first step in this direction was taken by Protestantism; the second is made by Modernism; the next will plunge headlong into atheism. »

By speaking of “dehellenisation” Pope Benedict XVI makes it less dramatic… but, as a result, he disarms us, us alone, in the face of the enemies of the Church.

FIRST “DEHELLENISATION”.

« Dehellenisation first emerges in connection with the postulates of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Looking at the tradition of scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system. The principle of sola Scriptura, on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. »

Long before Luther, the Abbé de Nantes observed, « Blessed John Duns, as an Augustinian Franciscan, will react against the seizure of our universities by the Aristotelian clan, even though he himself had succumbed to it and was of necessity still following it. Choosing the older tradition, his new thinking will be based not on human wisdom but directly and wholly on the Word of God. »

As for Duns Scotus, he placed this Word of God « above all and will strive to understand it, to justify it, without altering or obliterating any of its mystery and never injuring it. »

« Certainly he will use the light of reason, but it will be subordinate and distrustful of itself, knowing and declaring that reason in this earthly life is disabled and, what is more, darkened by “the sin of the world” (Jn 1.29). »

« That is how we see the grandiose, fruitful and nourishing theology of John Duns, the very secretive Scot, transplanted to Oxford and from there to Paris, who wished to “commend his spirit” to God alone. Swimming against the tide, and over-dependent on this all pervading scholasticism – he himself is obliged to comment on the Sentences! – his brilliant boldness, his amazing newness will tend to be lost in the midst of an off-putting jumble and will pass unnoticed or not understood. »

The Pope’s words illustrate again today this lack of understanding. But the Abbé de Nantes has understood the advantage that can be drawn from the “hodgepodge”:

« The “subtle Doctor” needs to be freed from this system that hems him in but is not his. One needs to be on the look out to catch his brilliance, then forgive him his longueurs of a metaphysics grown old before proving useful. Even so, it is an adventure, entailing risks and danger for us, to recover the lost path opened by our Blessed John Duns seven centuries ago, to go straight to the only object of our search: God the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of Mary of the Immaculate Heart, in His fiery Revelation. »  (CCR n° 283, p. 12)

It is indeed the only remedy for the growing apostasy of which Modernism was « the second step ».

MODERNISM: THE SECOND STEP.

« Modernists, as they are commonly and rightly called », Saint Pius X said of these modern heretics in the encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis with which he condemned them a hundred years ago next year (8 September 1907).

Benedict XVI passes over their name in silence, but it is indeed they of whom he speaks, since he refers to their “father”:

« The liberal theology of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries represented a second stage in the process of dehellenisation, with Adolf von Harnack as its outstanding representative. When I was a student, and in the early years of my teaching, this programme was highly influential in Catholic theology too. »

And the young Abbé Ratzinger associated with this Modernist “programme”, while the young Abbé de Nantes was already fighting against it!

Fifty years after the condemnations of Saint Pius X and, unfortunately, in spite of them, the warnings that were made at the beginning of the encyclical Pascendi have remained true: « It is not from without the Church, but from within that they put their designs for her ruin into operation; hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church. » The terms employed by Saint Pius X were strangely premonitory: ten years later, the Virgin Mary would place this ruin before the eyes of Lucy, Francisco and Jacinta on 13 July 1917.

Benedict XVI then casts light on « what was new about this second stage of dehellenisation. Harnack’s central idea was to return simply to the man Jesus and to His simple message, underneath the accretions of theology and indeed of hellenisation: this simple message was seen as the culmination of the religious development of humanity. Jesus was said to have put an end to worship in favour of morality. In the end He was presented as the father of a humanitarian moral message. Fundamentally, Harnack’s goal was to bring Christianity back into harmony with modern reason, liberating it, that is to say, from seemingly philosophical and theological elements, such as faith in Christ’s divinity and the triune God. »

The remainder of Benedict XVI’s discourse recalls Pius X’s analysis of Modernism, although he carefully avoids calling this plague by its name! Perhaps so as to not end up being compared to this saint? Since « science » has been reduced to a « synergy of mathematics and empiric elements », he writes, religion and morals « then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by “science”, so understood, and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective “conscience” becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter. This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity. »

We see this every day in what the Pope calls « the threatening pathologies of religion and reason that necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics [that is to say moral conduct] no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate. »

We are on the verge of discovering this truth in France: a hundred years after the expulsion of our religious congregations by the Republic, the godless School without Brothers of Christian Schools has fabricated a youth that does not know how to read or write or count, who lack the elementary bases of logic and reasoning as well as the habits of discipline, work, seriousness, attention, and self-control that study and community life require, and which the primary school should have instilled in them.

THE LAST STEP: RELIGIONS UNDER THE SCRUTINY OF REASON.

Nevertheless, far from deploring the catastrophic consequences of Protestant and Modernist secularism on our contemporary society, the Pope entirely excludes « the idea that one must put the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and reject the insights of the modern age ». His constant reference to John Paul II, his « beloved predecessor », is not an empty word. We would think we hear him! « The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvellous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. »

It is not question of condemning or casting anathema: « The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to man, we also see the threats arising from these possibilities, and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. »

How can we carry it out? By crushing some Adversary that works unrelentingly for the ruin of souls? No! Instead, we should establish « a genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world’s profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason that is deaf to the divine and that relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. »

« Nevertheless, as I have attempted to show, the modern reason proper to the natural sciences with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question that points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought: to philosophy and theology. »

Benedict XVI thus re-establishes theology on its throne as queen of the sciences. And philosophy is its minister for « everything is within the province, in the last instance, of metaphysics: all scientific knowledge, all moral doctrine, and all religion, even revealed » (G. de Nantes, Total Metaphysics. I. Metaphysics, the judge of sciences and religion, CRC n^o 170, Oct. 1981 p. 7)

« For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and convictions of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to refuse it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. »

For the Pope, the tradition of the Christian Faith is a « religious tradition » among others? The question may be asked. This peroration of his discourse, however, may also be understood as an invitation to a critical, scientific study of religions. It is clear that, from this viewpoint, the tradition of the Christian Faith alone presents serious grounds for being believed. This is why « it is the distinctive characteristic of Christianity alone, and even, Catholicism! to have dared to proclaim the complete submission of its doctrine, thus of the Word of God itself, and divine realities, of the divine Being! to the examination of metaphysical reason. » (G. de Nantes, ibid.)

« Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: “It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being.” »

This is the meaning of the adage of the Fathers of the Church, who observed that all the philosophies of their times were in error, and they concluded: « All philosophers are heretics. »

« “But in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss.” » Entreated by the Fathers of the Church « by philosophising themselves! By not merely contenting themselves with denouncing the errors of the ancient philosophers, but by refuting them by reason itself. This is what they did and they built a lasting monument – not a “Christian philosophy”, as has too often been claimed, but a true philosophy, a universal truth, composed of natural principles and essences, and for this reason capable of ascertaining the credibility of the Faith as well as helping to express it. » (G. de Nantes, ibid.)

« The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the basic questions that underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. »

The Abbé de Nantes makes the same observation in concluding his study of present-day science: « It sovereignly reigns over world public opinion and, almost, in proportion to its contempt for common sense. Yet this does not justify it! This does not prove either the truth of its theories or the legitimacy of such a situation. It proves the existence of a general, thoughtless, fad that is assisted and constrained by a degrading intellectual terrorism. For the assertion “credo quia absurdum” is as unjustified in science as it is in religion. » (G. de Nantes, ibid.)

« The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur – this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. “Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God”, said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university. »

Since earliest antiquity, this work has never ceased to be held in honour. This is the work of the Doctors of the Church.

It seems that this discourse was punctuated by loud applause. The protests from the chancelleries only came later, but what conductor orchestrated it? This general outcry that was raised after the event will allow the Pope to state that his invitation to “dialogue” has been reduced once again to monologue, and has left him to be confronted with the antichrist Adversary who inspires false religions. For the “Logos” took on flesh, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, in order to speak to us a language totally contrary to that of reason – the language of the Cross, « for the Jews a stumbling block, and for the Gentiles foolishness: » (1 Co 1.23), that is to say for the Greeks whose wisdom Benedict XVI praises, basically in the same manner as St. Paul in his discourse to the Areopagus of Athens.

« POOR LUCY, POOR LUCY »

This outburst of violence caused by the Pope’s words, reluctantly, makes us understand the great prophecy of 13 July 1917 that ended with the scene of the Church in which grace no longer is transmitted except through the blood of the martyrs.

Even before having knowledge of it, the Abbé de Nantes had a sense of the overpowering and mysteriously crushing weight of this “Secret” while on pilgrimage in Portugal, the day after the beatification of Francisco and Jacinta in May 2000, when Cardinal Sodano had partially revealed its contents. Our Father, whom I had the privilege of accompanying, continually murmured:

« It is frightening! »

– What? I asked him.

– It is frightening, this way of speaking of the “Secret”, as if it were nothing. The first part is Hell. Nothing else. It inspires fear in no one! The second part is Communism. But it has vanished. And the third part? It is supposed to be the attack of 13 May 1981… What a lie! »

Another « fright » that comes to my mind is the one that Jacinta experienced when one day she saw « the Holy Father in a very big house, kneeling by a table, with his head in his hands and weeping. Outside, there were many people and some of them were throwing stones, others were cursing him and using bad language against him. Poor Holy Father! We must pray very hard for him! »

This prophetic vision has begun to fulfil itself before our eyes. And this other one: « Oh! Lucy! Can’t you see all those roads, all those paths and fields full of dead and bleeding people, and others who are crying with hunger and have nothing to eat? And the Holy Father in a church, praying before the Immaculate Heart of Mary? And so many people praying with him? »

When will we see the Holy Father praying in this manner?

During our pilgrimage in May 2000, our Father murmured again while weeping: « Poor Lucy, poor Lucy! » The memory comes back to my mind insistently when reading the small posthumous book that the Carmel of Coimbra and the Secretariat of the Little Shepherds of Fatima have just published. At the request of her superiors, she wrote in the 1980s, that is to say, when she was nearly eighty years of age, “How I see the Message of Fatima through Time and Events”. She had no illusion about the importance that would be attached to this writing:

« Thus I will go, Lord, to set down on Your altar this new flower picked in the garden of Your love, but picked from a rosebush covered with thorns in order to pick the petals off on Your road and on mine, even if the petals end up being despised, taken away or swept along by the wind in order finally to be lying about on the ground and trampled underfoot by passers-by, as though they were remnants of my last remains. »

Such was the fate of this “flower” that is offered to us today, like remnants of her « last remains », a year after her death, as though it were her testament, while it has « lain about on the ground », or rather in a carton for twenty years. I do not recommend the reading of these pages to everyone. They contain enough to « disorient » minds definitively: on pages 54-55 we read that « on 25 March 1984 the Holy Father John Paul II publicly accomplished at Rome » the consecration of Russia. Consequently, we have the promised era of peace, as everyone can see!

Unlike her book on “Calls of the Message of Fatima”, Sister Lucy speaks in this one about the devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary; but she does not say a word about the reparatory devotion of the five First Saturdays. Nevertheless, the seer of Fatima is like an angel from Heaven, of rather like another Thérèse, a « rose that has lost its petals » like her, descending from Heaven, not to announce « another Gospel », but to remind us, with an extraordinary solemnity in the midst of the general apostasy, of God’s unique and great plan that goes through the entire history of humanity: « When the time, the year and the hour that God set had arrived, He sent His heavenly Messenger to our earth of which She is the Sovereign, the Queen, the Mother and Protector in order to place Her altar there and, from there, to go to evangelise the whole world, flying as though She had wings of light, so that atheism should not extinguish the light of faith, hope and love. »

« Atheism »? This abstract expression is surprising when coming from Sister Lucy’s pen. One would expect to read the expression « the errors of Russia », about which the Blessed Virgin spoke explicitly. Knowing that Sister Lucy has continually been at odds with the hierarchy on this subject, one might think that she resigned herself to this roundabout expression. That is, unless someone else’s hand corrected her text. Everything is possible!

« She came to this deserted place where everything invites prayer and silence, and which reminds me of this other desert into which Christ withdrew for forty days and forty nights in order to fast, pray and do penance for the salvation of humanity, which is heedless and lost in the abyss of sin, as though He had said from this place: “Repent and do penance, otherwise you will all perish in the same manner.” »

This is also what the Angel of the Third Secret cried out:

« Penance, Penance, Penance! »

Brother Bruno of Jesus.

(1) Conversation with a Muslim, 7^th controversy of Manuel II Palaiologos (Cerf, Sources chrétiennes 115).

(2) Despite the attempt made by Noldëke, Schwally, etc., we believe that there is no reason to give the “suras” an order different from that of the accepted “vulgate”. Besides, Denise Masson herself recognises this, and Régis Blachère, in his 1980 edition, renounces the classification used in his original post-war edition (Bruno Bonnet-Eymard, The Koran, Systematic Translation and commentary, Vol. 1, Sura 1: The Blessing; Sura 2: God of Deliverances, editions CRC, p. xxix) [available in French only].

(3) St. John of Damascus, Writings on Islam, Cerf, Sources chrétiennes 383 (Hérésie 100.1).